Attraction and dating information for the post-divorce crowd

Men – The Gatekeepers To Commitment (Long Post)

An interesting blog post over at Hooking Up Smart (link and note below) gives 25 Politically Incorrect But Effective Ways to Make Him Your Boyfriend. In the comments, I chimed in with:

The first item on the list should be “Know that he is the gatekeeper to commitment and that he can rescind that commitment at any time and for any reason. It is your supremely rewarding pleasure to maintain his desire and motivation to keep that commitment.”

Susan Walsh, the blog-mistress there, agreed.

A follow-up comment from HanSolo asked for some clarification on the concept that men are the gatekeepers to commitment. This commenter also made some excellent points (in boldface):

How true is it that men really are the gatekeepers to commitment?

The general principle to be a gatekeeper seems to be that he or she who decides last (or less often or less readily) is the gatekeeper since the other has already decided she or he wants it.

With sex, especially casual sex, women are seen as the gatekeepers since on average men want it significantly more and with less discrimination regarding whom.

In light of this post (aka, that many young women need this advice) and that many women in there 20′s don’t want a relationship but would rather study, work or party. Plus, with the many young women who will excessively blow out a guy for seeming too needy and clingy if he expresses that he’s looking for a relationship and not just casual (I’m not talking about the legitimacy of a guy waiting long enough to know her to like her beyond her looks). I would say these types are a minority but still a significant percentage that definitely affects the market. The other factor is hypergamy. If the 6 girl won’t even go out or hang out or whatever with the 6 guy who wants a relationship then effectively she is the gatekeeper and is preemptively keeping her relationship gate shut to him.

Now with the players and cads who are getting lots of attention then they are certainly gatekeepers for commitment because they either don’t want it at all or can be very selective in whom they commit to. In generically assigning men as the gatekeepers of commitment I wonder if there is not a bit of the apex-player-cad fallacy going on to some extent because we do hear about a lot of guys who do want a gf of their own MMV (especially the 6′s, maybe even 7′s, and below) but are having some difficulty in finding one. I won’t opine on how many such guys there are except that they probably are not a majority but are also not insignificant.

Even from evo-psych women are going to be careful and hence gatekeepers about whom they commit to.

So, what is meant by saying that men are the gatekeepers to commitment? Is it really the men that women want to commit to them and are thus of equal or higher MMV than her and would thus have other equal or better options than her? I can believe this but then really it is women who are the initial gatekeepers by filtering out most men and then it could be the remaining men that she is interested in are the later-stage gatekeepers.

Any thoughts on this to clarify it would be appreciated.

Here are my thoughts:

When assigning men to the gatekeeper role regarding commitment, several assumptions are involved:

1. He has found a woman who wants a committed relationship with him.

2. He is selective and careful about to whom he becomes committed.

3. He understands Charisma and is fully prepared to use those skills within the committed relationship.

As the commenter correctly pointed out, there is some apex fallacy (link below) going on within this model and within Dating 2.0 (link below). Yet the fundamental truth does remain in that a man has the opportunity to refuse commitment just as the woman has the opportunity to refuse sex. There are certain men who will seek commitment prior to a woman’s emotional investment. These men are not commitment worthy because they lack a fundamental understanding of Dating 2.0 and how it works in the context with Charisma.

As more and more men learn the realities of Dating 2.0 and the power that has been given them, the apex fallacy becomes less of an issue. But as things stand now, the commenter is basically correct when he states that “…then really it is women who are the initial gatekeepers by filtering out most men and then it could be the remaining men that she is interested in are the later-stage gatekeepers.” In other words, women lament that “no guy I’m interested in is willing to commit.” this is because, like most other women, she’s only interested in the top 20% of men.

In the Red Pill world that is the Manosphere, it is assumed that men are the prize, always in the top 20% and therefore the immediate (not late-stage) gatekeepers to commitment.

Note: Susan Walsh and her blog, Hooking Up Smart, have caused no small amount of controversy amongst several Manosphere bloggers. I bow out of this controversy but still respect the reasons that some Manosphere bloggers have cut ties with Susan.

Regardless, I think men are always the gatekeepers of commitment. Its just that right now the sexual maket place favors women so much that theyre able to make ridiculous demands on men.

Heres an easy analogy that most people can understand in todays economy and unemployment.

Employers are the gatekeepers of jobs, workers are the gatekeepers of labor. Right now theres so much excess labor due to unemployment that employers are abusing the system to ask ridiculous things of possible employees. This makes it more competetive but also adds illusion to an idea that employers are the gatekeepers of both jobs and labor. This continues until either the marker balances itself or enough gatekeepers of labor look at demands that are outside of their job descriptions but still required of them that they say ‘fuck that’. Then they become self employed, move, go on unemployment, or decide part time is a much better gig than full time. Or they learn how to play the system and milk employers by putting up a front enough to get the job, make themselves irreplaceable, and then do as little as possible while draining the employers of time, money, and company resources while they pursue outside personal projects

This is EXACTLY what men are doing. They either buy into womens bullshit, make due with porn and video games, expat, buy hookers, or do the MGTOW. Or they learn game and use womens expectations to take what they can from people that have shown a heartless abuse of the system at worst or a naive go with the system attitude at best.

Taxation and welfare programs ain’t gonna last forever. What goes up must come down and all that. Besides, women make it clear time and again that despite their jobs, money, and fabulous lives, they still want confident, dominant men. Somebody’s gonna sex these women; you might as well be one of those somebodys.

I still don’t get this one. It always feels like the red-pill version of Oprah platitudes.

Men are the gatekeepers to commitment (assuming a girl wants to commit to them already).

Well, no shit. Men are also the gatekeepers to sex, assuming a girl wants to have sex with them. Men are the gatekeepers to attention, assuming a girl wants their attention.

The entire idea just pigeonholes an entire gender as wanting only sex, and another as wanting only commitment, with the other being a consolation you cede as you wish. We all know this paradigm is broken.

Most women are gatekeepers of sex. Most men are gatekeepers of commitment.

Most men want sex from most women. Let’s not mince words here — the main reason most men are here and reading this stuff is they want sex, sex, more sex, and more sex partners.

Most women want commitment from an attractive man, sometimes for life, sometimes in serial fashion, one after the other. You can see this in action at spinstersphere blogs. The reason they exist is the authors, readers and commenters have either:

1. completely failed to secure commitment from an attractive man (i.e. the Daughters of Kate Bolick); or
2. had a commitment from an unattractive man and discarded him in hopes of securing commitment from a more attractive man.

You can also see this in action at blogs like HUS, where the number one search term which leads readers there is “why don’t I have a boyfriend”. Most HUS readers fall into one of the following categories:

1. at one time in her life she was unable to secure commitment from an attractive man;
2. she has never been able to secure commitment from an attractive man;
3. she has commitment from an unattractive man;
4. she does not know how to secure commitment from an attractive man and wants to learn how; or
5. she is dating or having sex with an attractive man who will not offer commitment.

The reason this blog exists is for men to fulfill their relationship goals, whatever those might be. And while I’ve been classified in the PUA wing of the Manosphere, I don’t even refer to the skills and attitiudes that I discuss as Game because those skills must come on top of a man being confident, competent, charismatic, and dominant. I stopped using the word “Game” well over a year ago.

Age is indeed a huge part of this. For young men not dealing with women suffering from baby rabies or women who have gone through trading season (late 30s+ divorce), they don’t quite understand the commitment issue as well as men who are over a certain age.

i actually used to want an LTR and was open to the idea of marriage i guess im to beta for pre-wallers. so so so many 7’s & 8’s have overvalued their SMV due to media, advertising etc the majority have the attitudes of a tank and bring nothing but their looks to the table. Call me cynical or bittter whatever i really dont give a rats a*** , i will be doing as Leap of Beta suggests milking the system and as my SMV is growing ,outright refusal to commit to anything longterm. Another one signing out. can you hear that????? WHERE ARE ALL THE GOOD MEN GONEEEEEEE……

Idea that women in western society seek commitment is a huge lie that even the most seasoned MRAs frequently believe. Why? Because it feels good to be needed instead of just wanted. Also they can one day (maybe) turn down used-up 40 year olds and feel vindicated.

But the uncomfortable fact is that western women go out of their way to avoid commitment during their high value years and only half-heartedly start to seek commitment when their value has already dropped and then complain about it seeking attention online.

That would be like a rich man who knows he will be poor in 20 years going out of his way to avoid the best sex he can get while he is at his richest and only half-heartedly trying to get sex when he is already poor. Does not make much sense does it?

If men seeking sex and women seeking commitment was at an equilibrium, women would seek the highest quality commitment they can get while their value was highest. But they don’t.

Are they fools? I posit they are not. They don’t have to seek commitment from any individual man because in our society women can have their cake and eat it too. The only commitment that really matters is from the state and that’s guaranteed. Anything else is just gravy. An optional want just enough to complain about but not enough to change lifestyle.

Men wouldn’t value sex so much either if it was guaranteed by the state. But its not, so they do.

Yes, imagine if instead of the government providing a welfare economic safety net to women it provided reduced price hookers to all males. This would seriously disadvantage the average woman looking for a husband. There would be a “womanosphere” where women would be trading tips on how to be more sexy to be able to attract a man. Guys wouldn’t waste any time at all learning “game”. They would be very picky in choosing wives and a lot of them wouldn’t bother getting married at all. If the shoe was on the other foot, women wouldn’t like it at all.

Keep in mind that women, like men, tend not to naturally know how the other gender is attracted. Women today have an entire industry telling them to delay marriage, get a job, and be like alpha men. Yes, the wise ones realize this is a load of bull….but an intelligent woman can STILL grow up in our society and not hear anything about how to maximize her MMV.